CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

KEYSTONE BANK LIMITED APPELLANTS

---

GREENGATES SPECIALTIES LTD RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent applied for the opening of an unconfirmed letter of credit on 07.07.08 in favour of a Dr. Paul Lumann GMBH of Germany covering N27, 243,150.00, which the Appellant approved in a letter dated 18.08.08 with terms and conditions, which included personal guarantee, which was executed by the Respondent with its Board Resolution attached. The terms and conditions of the facility allowed the Appellant to convert all outstanding balances and advances made under the line with the absolute discretion to apply any credit balance of the Respondent or any related/associated companies’ accounts with the Appellant in reduction of any sum which is due at any time in respect of the facility or any other facility granted to the Respondent. Because the exchange rate was then unfavourable as it was N140 to $1.00, the Appellant in accordance with the terms of the facility drew on the Respondent’s account to make up the shortage, which threw the Respondent’s account into debit. The Respondent on the other hand, requested the Appellant to furnish it with evidence of the bidding of N140 per $1.00 and statement of account, which the Appellant failed to furnish but rather referred the Respondent to the Central Bank of Nigeria (C.B.N.), for the information and that even the statement of account supplied by the Appellant covered only from 01.01.08 to 01.12.08; that it was in the midst of the controversy arising from dishonour of Respondent’s cheques that it sued at the High Court. The court granted the declaration that the debit on the Respondent’s account kept with the Appellant in respect of Letter of Credit in favour of Dr. Paul Lumann GMBH of Germany is wrongful upon which the Appellant was directed to credit the Respondent’s account with the sum of N5 million illegally deducted from the said current account with interest of 10% per annum with effect from 07.01.09 until date of full and final payment. Not satisfied with the judgment of the court below the Appellant filed a notice of appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed, Cross Appeal Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether in the face of irreconcilable contradictions in the evidence for the Respondent, the learned trial judge was right to have held that the Appellant had no authority to dishonour the cheques issued by the Respondent. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in her finding having regard to the Respondent’s Statements in the Respondent’s dedicated account not to have upheld the right of the Appellant to resort to the Respondent’s Current Account number 1040038643 in line with exhibit C20

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

FINDINGS OF FACT- ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLATE COURT TO FINDINGS OF FACTS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE

---

“The findings of fact (supra) are amply supported by the evidence. I have no cause to disturb them and hereby affirmed the said findings of fact accordingly vide Ebba v. Ogodo and Anor. (1984) N.S.C.C. 255 at 259 and 261 thus –
“…. a court of appeal should be loathe to interfere with or reverse findings of fact made by a court of trial unless such findings are perverse…………………….
Indeed, it is the duty of the trial court to assess witnesses, form impressions about them and evaluate their evidence in the light of the impression which the court forms of them. That is one good reason why the trial court is named a ”trial court” it is the trial court (and hence a court of appeal should attach the greatest weight to the opinion of the trial judge) that has the duty to see and indeed, in this case, has seen the witnesses and also heard their evidence. The Court of Appeal should not disturb a finding of fact unless that court is satisfied that such finding is unsound.
In this country, trial is usually, unlike in England, without a jury and the trial judge has the singular experience and duty of taking a lone decision on the evidence for the purpose of determining the facts, from his advantage of seeing and hearing simultaneously the witnesses. Unless the trial court has failed to make use of this singular advantage, and for that reason thereof the Court of Appeal finds that the decision is perverse, the Court of Appeal, whose opportunity is confined to printed record, is obliged to, and must accord to the finding of due respect. That indeed is the division of labour, and a sensible one at that, between the trial court and the appellate courts”.
See also Kodilinye v. Mbanefo Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336 at 338, Akinloye v. Eyilola (1968) N.M.L.R. 92, Fabunmi and Anor. v. Obaje and Anor. (1968) N.M.L.R. 242.”-

---

FINDINGS OF FACTS – ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLATE COURT TO FINDINGS OF FACTS BY A TRIAL COURT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY AND ORAL EVIDENCE

---

“The court below dispassionately considered the oral and documentary evidence before it and as is the case with documentary evidence it took into account the series of documents evidencing the contract between the parties and arrived at the conclusion aright, in my humble opinion, that the respondent proved its case against the appellant vide BFI Group Corporation v. Bureau of Public Enterprises (2012) 18 NWLR (pt.1332) 209 at 234 – 235, 238 – 239, 241, 253 – 254 following Bakar Marine (Nig.) Ltd. v. Chevron (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 13 NWLR (pt.997) 276, Omega Bank Nig. Plc v. O.B.C. Ltd. (2005) 8 NWLR (pt.928) 547, Lamie v. D.P.M.S. Ltd. (2005) 18 NWLR (pt.958) 458, Shell BP Petroleum Co. Dev. Ltd. v. Jammal Eng. (Nig.) Ltd. (1974) 4 SC 33, Afrotec Tech Services (Nig.) Ltd. v. M.I.A. and Sons Ltd. (2000) 15 NWLR (pt.692) 730, Owoniboys Technical Services Ltd. v. U.B.A. Ltd. (2003) 15 NWLR (pt.844) 545, S.E. Co. Ltd. v. N.B.C.I. (2006) 7 NWLR (pt. 978) 198.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the findings of fact made by the court below are reasonable and supported by the weight of documentary and oral evidence in the case and cannot be said to be patently perverse or wrong. I endorse the said findings of fact made by the court below in favour of the respondent vide Nwosu v. Board of Customs and Excise (1988) 5 NWLR (pt.93) 225, Nneji v. Chukwu (1996) 10 NWLR (pt.478) 263 followed in BFI Group Corporation v. Bureau of Public Enterprises (supra) at 236.

---

WRONGFUL DISHONOUR OF CHEQUES – DUTY OF COURT ON THE WRONGFUL DISHONOUR OF CHEQUES BY A BANK

---

“Having found that the dishonour of the cheques was wrongful and amounted to a breach of contract the court below should have held the cross-respondent liable in contract for wrongful dishonour of the cheques of the cross-appellant vide Balogun v N.B.N. Ltd. (1978) N.S.C.C. 135.

---

FINDINGS OF FACTS – WHETHER APPELLATE COURTS WILL INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF FACTS OF TRIAL COURT WHICH ARE NOT PERVERSE

---

“I have nothing much to add excepts to reiterate the fact that findings of trial court which are not perverse cannot be interfered with by this court, see CPC V INEC & Ors (2011) LPELR-8257(SC) wherein the apex court held as follows:
“It is settled law that an appellate court will not interfere with a finding of fact by a lower court where such findings is supported by the pleadings and evidence on record where such findings is supported by the pleadings and evidence on record. Therefore where a lower court unequivocally evaluates the evidence, and dispassionately appraises the facts, it is not business of an appellate court to substitute its own views for those of the trial/lower court as the appellate court will only interfere in exceptional circumstances such as where the finding is perverse, not supported by evidence or had occasioned a miscarriage of justice, see Woluchem vs Gudi (1981) 5 SC 291; Mogaji vs Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91; Obisanya vs Nwoko (1974) 6 SC 69; Hamza vs Kure (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 630 at 654.” Per ONNOGHEN,J.S.C”
–

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT